Nothing transparent about plastic-bag ban: Guest commentary

In the name of environmentalism, jobs and reducing costs to California cities, three state senators are about to ram through the Legislature a bill banning “single use” plastic bags. No public debate on the provisions of the bill is planned, and only its barest details have been revealed. “Transparency,” after all, is only a buzz word that may be ignored when it interferes with the wishes of politicians.

At issue is SB 270, introduced initially by Sen. Alex Padilla in 2013. That bill, however, deals with curbing the economic underground, those under-the-table cash purchases and wages that escape taxation. SB 270 languished in committee until a few days ago. Now all those clauses about the underground economy are apparently going to be stricken from the bill and entirely new language related to plastic bags inserted.

That practice of stripping a bill and directing it toward an entirely different issue is not uncommon. What is unusual about 270 is that the three Los Angeles area Democrats who are now pushing the ban on plastic bags — Padilla, Ricardo Lara and Kevin de Leon — seem intent on rushing the measure through the Legislature without public debate.

What are they hiding? We have some indication from the comments made at the press conference held Friday at a plastic bag factory in Vernon. Banning plastic bags is only part of the plan. Another target seems to be the “tens of millions of dollars” that the use, cleanup and disposal of plastic bags costs Californians annually. Yes, they tell us, banning the “single use” plastic bag will free up fabulous amounts of money to be spent on something else.

Those millions in savings are, of course, phantom dollars. We hear that argument for proposed projects frequently. Bullet trains will pay for themselves over the years. A new stadium will bring in more tax revenue than it takes to build it. A tax break for this or that industry will actually increase revenue to government. But we all know that the immediate effect is to take a portion of our tax dollars for the benefit of a special interest. Governmental services to the public suffer by that same amount.

Advertisement

Since all the provisions of the bill have not been revealed, we have no idea what SB 270 may have in store for us. We do know that $2 million will go to the plastic bag industry to help re-tool for the production of reusable bags. The 2,000 workers in that industry are also protected somewhat.

Beyond that, a statement by Jim Araby, executive director of a food workers’ union, suggests even greater raids on those “tens of millions of dollars” in savings. Araby, quoted in a pro-ban press release, urged the Legislature to pass the ban “and re-invest its projected long-term savings in workers training programs and food safety initiatives. ...” Just how much will those long-term savings be? The press release cited those “tens of millions of dollars.”

The only organized opposition to the bill comes from the plastic bag industry, which is now divided because of those sweeteners Padilla has offered. To stop the bill will take an outcry from an aroused public that now uses those “single use” plastic bags for multiple purposes and would like to continue doing so.